I am moving to Nevada if they vote to Decriminalize.

Its so going to screw up drug testing in all the casinos...so don't hold your breath. But this election should be very interesting all the way around SLG
 
I don't know the particulars of what they are trying to pass, hopefully it is straight up.

Many times in the past they have submitted proposals to legalize, and they have all this other bullshit attached to it, such as restitution for people currently jailed for marijuana related convictions, reperations, and all this other crap.

Hopefully the proposal there is straight foward, legalization in moderate amounts for adults.
 
What is so bad about buying it illegally? The chances of getting busted are slim...not that I encourage drug use...I'm just saying...
 
Rubyfruit said:
Hey Supergirlie, just so happens I have a room to rent.

:)

Anybody welcome? It might be a good deal! :rose: :kiss:
What's the hot money on? Legalize or defeat?
 
My home city, Columbia Mo. is about to get enough signatures to put decriminalization on the city ballot. We've already had 2 chiefs of police kicked by the city council for pursuing marijuana crimes on a state level. As it is now, a possession charge under 35grams results in around a hundred dollar fine.




heres a link http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v02/n1937/a05.htm?134
 
Last edited:
Gunner Dailey said:
I don't know the particulars of what they are trying to pass, hopefully it is straight up.

Scanned from the sample ballot:
EXPLANATION

The proposed amendment to the Nevada Constitution would amend sections of the Nevada Constitution that currently authorize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. The proposed amendment would allow any person who has attained the age of 21 years to use or possess three ounces or less of marijuana without being subject to arrest, civil or criminal penalty or seizure, or forfeiture of assets.

The constitutional amendment also requires the Legislature to provide or maintain penalties for driving dangerously or operating heavy machinery while under the influence of marijuana; for distributing or selling marijuana to persons under age 21 years; for persons under the age of 21 years using and possessing marijuana; for using marijuana in a vehicle or public place; and for distributing, selling, using or possessing marijuana on the premises of a jail, prison, or public school.


ii


The proposal also requires establishment of a system of regulation for the cultivation, taxation, sale and distribution of marijuana, including the distribution of marijuana at low cost to those medically authorized to use it. Under this system, all advertising of marijuana is prohibited. The purchase of marijuana from licensed establishments is authorized under this proposal. The transportation of marijuana in or out of state is prohibited unless federal law permits such transport. The license fees and taxes at wholesale are proposed to be the same as those for cigarettes and tobacco related products, respectively. The retail sales tax for marijuana is proposed to be the same as those of other products generally.

This measure has to pass this year AND in 2004 to become law.

The "Defense of Marriage" farce passed two years ago, so if it passes this year, it's passed for good. There is more organized opposition to it this time around; two years ago, nobody believed it was a serious threat to be passed 'cause it's basically just so stupid a proposition -- The Nevada Revised Statutes already contain this wording but the "Defense of Marriage" measure adds the bigotry to the Nevada Constitution so that if our legistators should come to their senses they can't change the wording of the statute.
 
Can you explain what the "defense of Marriage" thing is?
 
Azwed said:
Can you explain what the "defense of Marriage" thing is?

From the sample ballot:
FULL TEXT OF THE MEASURE


The People of the State of Nevada do enact as follows:

RESOLVED, That a new section designated Section 21 be added to Article I of the Constitution of the State of Nevada to read as follows:

"Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state."

Sidenote: the fiscal impact statement for this issue is "none that can be predicted," which, in a state that derives a large part of it's popularity as a tourist destination from it's marriage chapels, is a bit disingenuous. [tic]We should be embracing the concept of anyone being able to marry anyone or anything they want to to boost the marraige chapel's business.[/tic] ;)
 
california legalized medical marijuana a few years ago. it's still a federal crime.
 
seXieleXie said:
california legalized medical marijuana a few years ago. it's still a federal crime.

So did Nevada, but we worded our requirements for administering the program to get around the federal ban -- anyone using Medical marijuana in Nevada is part of a "state sponsored study" of medical marijuana.
 
Weird Harold said:
Sidenote: the fiscal impact statement for this issue is "none that can be predicted," which, in a state that derives a large part of it's popularity as a tourist destination from it's marriage chapels, is a bit disingenuous. [tic]We should be embracing the concept of anyone being able to marry anyone or anything they want to to boost the marraige chapel's business.[/tic] ;)

Exactly my point...But for some reason the LDS Church seems to think that they would have to accept gays and that would be against their religion.

Somebody wanna *find* the passage in the bible where it states that same sex marriage should be outlawed????

I will send you a cookie if you can find it...anyone...
 
jezuz. if it DOES pass, Alaska will either follow suit shortly thereafter, or it will lose 1/2 to 3/4 of its population. well, if munchies didn't cut into funds for plane tickets and moving costs.
 
Back
Top